• In the case of Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 386, there was no inducement in the contract because there was written consent even if the investor did not read the terms and conditions of the contract.
  • This contract law case is about misrepresentation, investments and risk clauses.

Facts of the Case

  • The lower courts held that the nature of the investment was misrepresented giving the other party the idea that C would obtain a proprietary interest in a GKO.
  • The banking group appealed claiming they did not misrepresent the terms and conditions because the document signed contained the investment details.

Issues

  • Was C aware of the true facts?
  • Was C induced by the misrepresentation and acted on its reliance?

Held by Court of Appeal

  • Appeal allowed – C cannot assert they were induced into agreeing to the investment.

Moore-Bick LJ

Aware of the facts

  • As an experienced investor, C should have understood the terms explained by D in the risk disclosure agreement.
  • C was only induced to consent to the agreement based on his own information on the emerging sales investment product.
  • Written consent shows understanding of the contractual terms and conditions (L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394).

Misrepresentation

  • “The starting point when considering any claim for misrepresentation must be to determine whether the defendant did in fact make the statement on which the claimant relies.” [23]
  • As shown by Redgrave v Hurd [1881] 20 Ch D 1, someone who makes a statement intending the other to rely upon it then they cannot protest if they relied upon it.
  • Legal authority proves “whether a person has been induced by misrepresentation to enter into a contract is a question of fact” [40]

Study Law in the UK

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.